SCG MiMa Towers LLC v. Noble

Background

SCG MiMa Towers LLC filed an eviction petition against Kenneth Noble, Jenson Salsich, and various Doe parties in the Civil Court for the City of New York, New York County, Housing Part. The petition sought eviction for nonpayment of $99,500 in rent. The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York, asserting that federal-question jurisdiction existed because of their counterclaim seeking a setoff involving foreign sovereign bonds and their assertion that SCG MiMa Towers LLC was a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

On May 16, 2025, the court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court. Before and after that ruling, the defendants filed a motion to disqualify SCG MiMa Towers LLC’s counsel, a motion for reconsideration, motions to strike filings, a second notice of removal, and a motion to reopen the federal case. Kenneth Noble, whom the opinion identifies as the primary filer, was proceeding without a lawyer.

Reasons for the Decision

The court gave two principal reasons for denying the defendants’ motions. First, federal law provides that an order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed generally cannot be reviewed on appeal or otherwise. The court explained that this rule applies when a case was removed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also concluded that a second notice of removal is not permitted after a court has remanded the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, unless circumstances arise that make a previously nonremovable case removable. The defendants did not rely on such circumstances.

Second, the court declined to consider whether SCG MiMa Towers LLC’s counsel had a conflict of interest. The court stated that any such conflict did not affect the fairness of the court’s process because the court had independently considered subject-matter jurisdiction and would have remanded the case regardless of whether SCG MiMa Towers LLC had appeared.

The court also briefly addressed the defendants’ argument that federal jurisdiction existed independently under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a), relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria. The court concluded that this argument did not support removal. SCG MiMa Towers LLC, the plaintiff, had started the case in state court, and the defendants’ counterclaim could not establish the federal court’s original jurisdiction for purposes of removal. The court further explained that the statute allowing a foreign state to remove certain cases does not allow other defendants to remove a case under that provision.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to disqualify, the motion for reconsideration, the motions to strike, and the motion to reopen. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions at Docs. 20, 21, 26, and 27 and to remand the case to the Civil Court for the City of New York, New York County, Housing Part.